ma_testfandomcom-20200214-history
Talk:Xindi incident
FA status Nomination Self-nomination. A detailed review of the final battles of the Xindi Conflict (2153-2154). Covers events from to . -- 24.151.112.245 * Opposed. It has the makings of a great article, but it needs some serious reworking to fit its focus. Additionally, the title really needs work. IMO "Xindi War" is wholly inappropriate for what it's covering. -- Dan Carlson 00:32, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST) ---- Formerly nominated (sorta) as "Xindi War". IMO Steve Mollman did a great job of reworking this article into a comprehensive summary of ENT's whole mission in the Expanse. -- Dan Carlson 20:27, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Seconded (though the title is very weird and this article may have to be moved in the future). -- Redge 20:33, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Mollman'n''. Anyway, seconded, obviously. I tried to put in a reference of some sort to every Season 3 episode. And as for the title, it was the best I could do. --Steve 07:22, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Certainly seconded. That's a very extensive in-depth article, which certainly deserves to be a Featured Article. Though I agree the title is a little odd, but I honestly can't think of a better name for the article, though. Good work! Ottens 21:54, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. --BlueMars 00:33, Jun 28, 2004 (CEST) *Support. -- Michael Warren 00:45, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) Status Article was renominated in the same edit it was removed in, and should be brought up for reconfirmation sooner rather than later. - 19:42, December 21, 2011 (UTC) Reconfirmation This FA has one of the most questionable histories of all the articles ever considered. Nominated in the same edit it was created, this article has been renamed several times, including during the nomination, and when opposed it was "renominated" in the same edit the original nomination was removed (See the FA history for links and such). That said, I think it's pretty much up to snuff by today's standards. - 22:33, December 27, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'. - 22:33, December 27, 2011 (UTC) :Given its shaky FA history, can we agree to give this the "full nomination" treatment of needing 5 support vote from the start? I'm sure I could find something sensible to oppose this article for (like the strange article structure made apparent by the total lack of subsections), but I think it would be a good sign if this was handled that way without being forced by an oppose vote. -- Cid Highwind 12:59, December 28, 2011 (UTC) I don't have a problem with more votes being required for this one as long as this isn't used as a precedent for other problematic reconfirmations, since this one is a bit more "problematic" than the others. That said, I'm not sure how moving the current sections down a header level would make the article better, which is the first thing I think of when you mention the lack of subsections. - 16:54, December 28, 2011 (UTC) ::I think it could benefit from some more internal links. --Defiant 21:59, December 30, 2011 (UTC) :I'm not suggesting to simply "move down one level" some of the headers. What I had in mind is the idea that a "natural" article structure would probably be more nested than what we currently have (twelve sections of equal level, thus supposedly of equal importance and equal "distance" from each other). For example, the first three sections are about "pre-Expanse" stuff, so maybe it would be a good idea to make those subsections under a new level-2 header. Maybe it would make sense to split the "in-Expanse" stuff into two major sections, one about the early needle-in-a-haystack search and one about the later direct dealings with the Xindi. Maybe we find out that some of the stuff (like, for example, the Suliban kidnapping Archer and telling him stuff) isn't even part of the "Xindi incident" itself (so should be removed from the article, or the article renamed). -- Cid Highwind 23:46, December 30, 2011 (UTC) I'm open to reworking the structure, but I think details like the Suliban kidnapping are helpful in providing context, since that's where the info about why and who attacked Earth comes from. As for the name, I think "incident" was used more than "crisis", or at least was used after the fact, which I guess is why "incident" is used while something like "crisis" seems like the better word to encompass the all the events. Based on the comment on the articles talk page though, that should be looked into. - 02:08, December 31, 2011 (UTC) ::Yeah, "Xindi incident" was indeed used more often than "Xindi crisis" (with the former being referenced in both and , whereas the latter is used only in ). All these terms are used after-the-fact, though – during the course of season 4. --Defiant 02:53, December 31, 2011 (UTC) I've reworked the structure by generally removing most of the headers between content I felt was generally similar. Sub sections could be reintroduced as needed, though I don't think we need as many sections as we started out with. - 15:17, January 4, 2012 (UTC) Anymore input? - 14:41, January 7, 2012 (UTC) *'Support'. It seems a good summary to me and I think the above mentioned concerns have been addressed. --31dot 01:37, January 8, 2012 (UTC) *'Support'. As 31dot says, nice readable overview of one of the more intricate Star Trek story lines..--Sennim 10:24, January 9, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' - as above.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 02:49, January 14, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' - Excellent article. --Pseudohuman 02:26, January 16, 2012 (UTC) *'Support' - Well written and a great article. Tom 19:42, January 16, 2012 (UTC) Made up names This page should be changed back to "Battle of the Council". I've already used Xindi civil war. -- :Anyway, I had an idea. This article seems somewhat disjointed and unfocused now; unless someone objects strenuously I think that tomorrow I'll restructure it to be an article on the key events of the entire Xindi arc... call it "Search for the Xindi weapon" or something. --Steve 02:50, 25 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Pulles it of nicely. I think the title is still an objection. When I come up with a better one, I'll post it here. -- Redge 11:25, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::So many of these early articles are completely user-made names, and not names used in the series. This "mission" was most referred to during ENT Season 4 as the "Xindi incident" and I have moved the page there accordingly to reflect the "canon" description of these events. --Alan del Beccio 13:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Beta Quadrant Was it really stated in that the Enterprise was in the Beta Quadrant? I'd more likely guess, this is derived from the Star Trek: Star Charts, where the Enterprise mainly explores the Beta Quadrant. Kennelly 00:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)\ From Battle of the Xindi Council planet I suggest merging this with Xindi incident. This battle was not referred to with any formal name, and was just part of the entire series of events already depicted there. Most of the sidebar is also estimations as figures were not given. Separately, I'm also not sure I would characterize the working together of the Enterprise and Xindi factions as an "alliance". If this is kept here, it needs to be linked to from somewhere.--31dot 20:20, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :There is a reference to "five Insectoid ships".--Vulcan359 21:39, June 20, 2011. ::I believe many of these "battle-articles" have been created for the sole purpose of having a place to put the outcome-sidebar. Since that one is borderline speculation in many cases, I agree with a merge (and subsequent removal of that sidebar) wherever possible. -- Cid Highwind 21:46, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :::Merge. - 08:46, June 21, 2011 (UTC) ::::Merge. The Xindi incident can possibly count as one major battle.- JustPhil 11:43, June 21, 2011 (UTC) :::::Support Merge. I'm also not sure if you could use the alliance as being "Earth" and Xindi, unless there is proof of an official support for the alliance by earths governmental body. -- OvBacon(Talk) 17:56, June 21, 2011 (UTC) New Name? In my opinion, "Xindi incident" implies a single event. I think "Xindi crisis" would be better. Thoughts? - Mitchz95 22:41, December 30, 2011 (UTC) :The article already states "Xindi incident or Xindi crisis" in the beginning- so I'm guessing both terms were used to refer to it in canon. I'm not sure why "incident" is favored.--31dot 23:12, December 30, 2011 (UTC) ::See here for info. - 02:09, December 31, 2011 (UTC)